Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41114672›Full record

ArticlePain2026

Preclinical assay of the effects of lacosamide, pregabalin, and tapentadol on the rat N1 spinal somatosensory evoked potential.

Kenneth A J Steel, James P Dunham, Caterina Leone, Andrea Truini, Rolf-Detlef Treede, Keith Geoffrey Phillips, Jeffrey Krajewski, Anthony Blockeel, Anthony E Pickering

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kenneth A J SteelAnaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Research, School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4294-0925
James P DunhamAnaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Research, School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1435-5043
Caterina LeoneDipartmento Di Neuroscienze, Umane Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8828-361
Andrea TruiniDipartmento Di Neuroscienze, Umane Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2630-7647
Rolf-Detlef TreedeCenter for Biomedicine and Medical Technology Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8065-1708
Keith Geoffrey PhillipsEli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Jeffrey KrajewskiEli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Anthony BlockeelAnaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Research, School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Anthony E PickeringAnaesthesia, Pain and Critical Care Research, School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0345-0456

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 777500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractThe high failure rate in translating novel analgesics into the clinic has highlighted the need for more translatable biomarkers of analgesic target engagement. The N13 component of spinal somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) has been proposed as a biomarker of spinal nociceptive processing in humans, but it is not known whether this can be back translated into rodents. Tapentadol, lacosamide, and pregabalin were used as pharmacological probes to assess the sensitivity of spinal SEPs to drug action. In anaesthetised, naïve rats (n = 44), a multielectrode silicon probe was inserted into the L4 spinal cord to record SEPs from the dorsal horn after electrical stimulation of the sciatic nerve. At baseline, the N1 component (rodent equivalent of the human N13) had an amplitude of 1.33 ± 0.07 mV at a latency of 4.6 ± 0.2 milliseconds after low-intensity stimulation (average 0.32 mA), with an intensity-dependent amplitude increase into the noxious range (0.4-3.2 mA). The N1 amplitude was significantly reduced by 10 mg/kg tapentadol (40.2 ± 12.5% vs vehicle 96.2 ± 8.0%) and 30 mg/kg lacosamide (46.3 ± 20.9% lacosamide vs vehicle 115 ± 5.9%) at 60 minutes after intraperitoneal administration. Tapentadol also reduced the N1 amplitude in the noxious range. Lacosamide increased the stimulus current required to evoke the half maximal N1 response (EC50), without reducing the maximum N1 amplitude in the noxious range. Pregabalin (at any dose up to 30 mg/kg) did not modulate the N1 amplitude. These results show that the spinal N1 is differentially modulated in a way that reflects distinct mechanisms of analgesic action consistent with it being a translatable biomarker of target engagement.

Indexed as

AcetamidesAnalgesicsEvoked Potentials, Somatosensorygamma-Aminobutyric AcidPhenolsPregabalinSpinal CordAnimalsElectric StimulationLacosamideMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyTapentadolAcetamidesAnalgesicsgamma-Aminobutyric AcidLacosamidePhenolsPregabalinTapentadolNociceptionNociceptive biomarkerSpinal cord N13Target engagementWide dynamic range neurons

Identifiers

PMID41114672
PMCPMC12794353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.